Unfortunately, it has to be: The house in case of inheritance, spousal protection

simply save the money or take out a small risk life insurance policy [Risiko-LV] in favor of each other and that's it. In the event of death, then pay out the parents or write it into the will so that the spouse should get 100% and the compulsory portion should be paid out.

Risk life insurance [Risiko-LV] costs nothing.

If one comes up with any declarations before death, family stress is inevitable.

Thank you for the objection.

How does this judgment fit in Az.: 12 O 82/17): according to this, the usufruct reduces the compulsory portion:

Quote: "When calculating the estate value relevant for the compulsory portion, the right of usufruct must be taken into account as a value reduction, even if the defendant is the sole heir and usufructuary. The objective market value of the estate property is drastically reduced by the usufruct right of the defendant, as an expert had explained."

I have also read about the gifts; in these cases, however, an actual gift (i.e. transfer of ownership), usually to the children, took place. In my example above, no transfer of ownership takes place, right?

How does this judgment fit in Az.: 12 O 82/17): according to it, usufruct reduces the compulsory portion:

It fits exactly. If you read the reasoning of the judgment, your case is specifically mentioned as a distinguishing example from the case under consideration. The difference is: the lady was not (co)owner of the house before the inheritance. Furthermore, crucial: at the time of the gift (registration of the usufruct right) the partners were not married.

But even in a partition auction, the usufruct could not be deleted if it was registered BEFORE the inheritance event, so it ranks higher than the rights of the heir?

First of all, today the bank is entered in the land register (if you have financed). The future registration of the usufruct/right of residence or whatever is then subordinate and is removed in every auction, regardless of whether it is carried out by the bank or an heir. To make the usufruct "auction-proof," the bank must agree and subordinate its mortgage. But it does not do this, as it would destroy the property's value from the bank's perspective (the usufruct would no longer be removed in a foreclosure auction, and thus there would be little to no interest). The timing of the usufruct registration before the inheritance event is therefore completely irrelevant. The relationship with the bank is important.

The difference is: The lady was not (co-)owner of the house before the inheritance.

It's true, the case mentioned in the judgment doesn't really fit here (it's supposed to be about spouses). As far as I could extract from the judgment - one should get legal advice in such matters anyway. The issue is unfortunately more complicated than expected.

However, there still seems to be a loophole. A gift that is linked to a consideration would be assessed differently? In my example, the spouses mutually grant each other usufruct over their respective shares. With a normal asset (or in duplicate), which both partners gift to each other, this would be pointless because the assets would not decrease and the compulsory portion remains the same. With a gifted usufruct, this would (probably) be different, since usufruct is not inheritable and ends with the death of one partner. The value gifted to him is therefore lost at death and does not fall into the estate.



Thanks for the hint, can an heir who is entered in the land register by virtue of inheritance even apply for the partition auction if the bank's mortgage still exists?

Thanks for the hint, can an heir who is registered in the land register by inheritance even apply for a partition auction if the bank's mortgage still exists?

Yep, daily practice, since many heirs cannot agree